Laserfiche WebLink
,_....�.'.. <br /> <r <br /> Ci.t� o� ORONO <br /> • RESOI.UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � NO. 2173 <br /> � <br /> ' • � • • <br /> A RESOLUTION GRANTING <br /> A VARIANCE TO <br /> MIINICIPAL ZONING CODE <br /> SECTION 10.24, SIIBDIVISION 5 (B) <br /> FILE #1130 <br /> WHEREAS, Ken & Renee Eggert (hereinafter "the applicants") have <br /> an interest in the property located at 1371 Rest Point Lane within the City <br /> of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: <br /> (Exhibit "A", attached) ; (hereinafter "the property") ; and <br /> WH$REAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to <br /> Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the <br /> construction of a single family residence on a lot of 0.63 acre and 135 <br /> feet in width where 1.0 acre in area and 140 feet in width are normally <br /> required. <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, <br /> oMinnesota: <br /> FINDINGS <br /> 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1130. <br /> 2. The property is located in the LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore <br /> Residential Zoning District. <br /> 3. A lot area/lot width variance was previously granted for the <br /> property in 1982. <br /> 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April <br /> 20, 1987, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon <br /> the following findings: <br /> A) Lot area is 0.63 acre in a 1-acre zone. Within the Rest <br /> Point neighborhood, this lot is larger than 26 of the 30 existing <br /> developed properties. Within the total LR-1B district, this lot <br /> is larger than 44� of the developed properties. <br /> B) Sewer is available (2 stubs exist) and has been assessed, <br /> except for the $225 plant charge that would be due with the <br /> building permit. <br /> C) The applicants intend to construct their home centrally on <br /> • the property, with walkout-level garage accessing to Rest Point <br /> Lane (north or downhill roadway). This was a condition of the <br /> 1982 approval, apparently for safety reasons. <br /> - Page 1 of 5 - - _ __ __ _ ___. <br />